Skip to content
Menu
menu

Illustration by iStock; Security Management

2024 U.S. Elections Spark Concerns About Widespread Riots and Significant Business Disruption

Regardless of national borders or societal structures, civil disorder has always plagued humanity. Violence triggered by real or perceived grievances, rumors, speculation, and internal or external agitators poses a risk to people, communities, businesses, and the rule of law. But while that tumult is a constant in human history, the propensity for violence and how it is incited is an evolving threat.

The modern causes of violence during displays of civil disorder are mainly linked to causes or incidents related to economic and social injustice, sports- and event-related riots, a reaction to police or security forces, and political unrest.

As the United States nears the contentious 2024 elections in November, there are fertile conditions for widespread violence. These include an increasing mistrust in government, global tensions and conflicts, threats from domestic extremist groups, a rising acceptance of violence as a means of settling political disagreements, hostile nation-actors, and international terror groups that exploit societal instability. Further exacerbating these factors are the risks from artificial intelligence (AI), deepfakes, rapid mass communications, citizen journalists, influencers amplifying grievances, and inflammatory media reporting. This convergence of aggravations and accelerants generates the potential for serious security risks and significant business disruption.

The question facing the security profession is whether the coming 2024 U.S. elections will contend with a new danger threatening the rule of law and the ability of businesses to operate profitably?

Civil disorder originates from an incident that a segment of the community perceives as negative. Violent groups then can take advantage of the tense situation and commit seemingly random acts of violence. Riots can include widespread acts of civil disruption with assaults, looting, arson, and sniper attacks, or they can present in a domino effect, leading other segments of the community to join the violence.

Since the 1960s, the United States has experienced occasional periods of increased civil disorder. Between 1964 and 1968, 329 riots in 257 cities killed more than 220 people. Although political violence declined between the 1980s and 2016, beginning in 2016 there was a resurgence of violence.  Since 2016, there have been 213 incidents of political violence and 39 deaths resulting from the “perception that members of the opposing political party are an evil force bent on destroying America’s social and cultural fabric,” according to a 2023 Reuters special report, Political violence in polarized U.S. at its worst since 1970s, written by Ned Parker and Peter Eisler.

Today, the threat of violence before, during, or after the 2024 U.S. elections is rooted in perceived social injustice and politically motivated unrest. At the same time, it includes perceived economic injustice and the risk of a negative reaction by both rioters and the public to police actions during large public gatherings.

Specifically, the polarization of U.S. society over the validity of the 2020 elections, the integrity of the 2024 elections, laws and legal rulings on abortion, and LGBTQ+ rights, plus a corrosion of trust in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government all present an environment where businesses are faced with a period of elevated, complex, and national security risks and resultant business challenges.

More recently, the assassination attempts on former U.S. President Donald Trump underpin the increasing potential for violence against political figures and potentially against prominent social figures and influencers acting as allies to a party. Whether successful or not, these attacks have the potential to fan the flames of societal discord leading to physical violence.

Understanding the Impacts of Civil Disorder

It is important for the security professional to understand not only the impacts that civil unrest can have on an organization or community, but also the causations behind civil disorder—put simply, why and how riots occur.

Security professionals can better structure a resilience strategy and identify warning signs by breaking down a complex threat into its component parts, including the phases of how civil disorder escalates from an idea to a point of physical violence. In his book, Phases of Civil Disturbances: Characteristics and Problems, Carl Rosenthal identifies the four chronological phases where civil disorder escalates into a riot:

  • Premobilization
  • Mobilization
  • Hostile outburst
  • Post-hostile outburst

Within these phases there are different crowd classifications, including:

  • The casual or physical crowd, formed as a temporary collection of people with no unity or organization
  • The conventional or cohesive crowd, which assembles at a designated site for a pre-planned occasion
  • The expressive crowd engaging in expressive behaviors, which can be passive or aggressive in nature

Security professionals should consider the composition of a crowd when determining the likelihood for violence. The presence and influence of peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, militants, exploiters, instigators, or opportunistic criminals can affect the threat level of a protest or other event—a larger influence from malicious actors can sway the larger crowd toward a riot and violence.

These identifiers enable security professionals to design effective resilience strategies; define and prepare their crisis management structures and plans; establish risk and business continuity plans; track emergent threats; develop and implement training and exercise programs; map and deploy resources and support; and implement proactive or reactive incident or crisis response measures.


The presence and influence of peaceful demonstrators, onlookers, militants, exploiters, instigators, or opportunistic criminals can affect the threat level of a protest or other event.


Identifying Probable Targets and Affected Areas

Identifying the targets of potential violence enables security professionals to focus resilience strategies, effort, and finite resources for the people, operations, and assets most at risk.

In an apolitical study I conducted, I probed the attitudes of 67 professionals in security, resilience, and crisis leadership roles on the potential of violent incidents or riots in relation to the 2024 U.S. election. These professionals—included CSOs; security directors; resilience, business continuity, or crisis management leaders; executive risk owners and managers; and other C-suite members—participated in the survey between May and June 2024.

Overall, 33 percent of these risk professionals said deliberate violence related to the election was highly likely and another 43 percent said it was likely. Seventeen percent said there was a definite risk and only seven percent said intentional or planned violence was highly unlikely.

Asked what places or sectors should be most concerned about the risk of violence, 86 percent said the riots present risks to law enforcement or government buildings; 52 percent said retail, commercial, and recreational areas; 46 percent said business, transport, and industrial facilities; and 44 percent said densely populated residential areas. Fully 43 percent said riots present risks to every category.

Asked if riots do occur, where those riots were most likely to occur, 20 percent said they would occur in widespread mid-sized and major cities around the country; 40 percent said they would occur in several major cities; 33 percent said it would be limited to a smaller number of cities; and seven percent said riots would be limited to Washington, DC.

The Accelerants of Civil Disorder

Security professionals can establish resilience strategies based on both the probability and impact of risks occurring against an organization’s people and business interests. When organizations understand the triggers for violence and the conditions that affect the speed, scope, and intensity of rioting, then more informed resilience planning and timely crisis decision-making can occur.

There are various accelerants and exacerbators of civil disorder that are likely to contribute additional tension around the elections and demonstrations related to them.

Internal exacerbators:

  • COVID-19 polarization of American politics
  • 2020 U.S. electoral dispute
  • Diminished trust in the three branches of government
  • Longstanding incidents of police action
  • Decades of racial and religious tensions
  • LGBTQ+ rights
  • Abortion laws
  • Extremist domestic groups

External exacerbators:

  • Russia-Ukraine war
  • China-Taiwan tensions
  • Middle East tensions
  • North Korea tensions
  • Syrian conflict
  • International terror groups

Accelerants to violence:

  • AI deepfakes and conspiracy theories
  • Inflammatory and polarized media
  • Growing number of people who justify political violence
  • Hostile nation-state actors
  • Potential for rapid escalation in police response
  • Rapid encrypted mass communications

For example, the elements of diminished trust in the government and  the growing number of people who justify political violence were present surrounding the planned September sentencing decision by Judge Juan Merchan against Trump. The sentencing was postponed until after the election, but it had the potential to aggravate the existing political tensions on both the left and the right, with convictions inflaming broad segments of U.S. society, including extremist groups.

The Potential Cost to Business

Every public gathering has an economic cost. When a gathering becomes violent, the economic impacts can be accompanied by injuries and deaths, property and asset damage, insurance claims and compensation, and business interruption.

Although the costs are difficult to quantify, riots are expensive and can have far-reaching impacts on people, communities, and businesses. The 1992 Los Angeles riots resulted in more than 700 businesses being burned down or significantly damaged, costing more than $1 billion in damage.

In the United Kingdom, the nationwide riots following the 2011 police shooting of Mark Duggan resulted in more than £133 million ($176.6 million) in policing and compensation costs. And, in the United States, the attack on the U.S. Capitol on 6 January 2021 was estimated to have cost more than $2.7 million.


The 1992 Los Angeles riots resulted in more than 700 businesses being burned down or significantly damaged, costing more than $1 billion in damage.


Organizational Resilience Strategies

The alignment of anticipated risks is defined by the effectiveness of the resilience strategy. This includes how organizations establish management structures, communication strategies, codified standards and practices, the allocation of support and resources, and training and exercising programs. A prepared organization will weather a riot better than an organization that must scramble to design, codify, and implement resilience strategies, structures, plans, resources, and training as a crisis unfolds.

Approximately 70 percent of business leaders expressed concerns about the 2024 U.S. elections, with 25 percent stating they are unprepared for political violence, according to Beazley’s Geopolitical Risk Snapshot 2024. Comparatively, in my survey of security professionals, 15 percent felt their organizations were highly resilient, and another 46 percent felt their organizations were reasonably resilient. Nearly four in 10 (39 percent) felt their organizations lacked a sufficient level of resilience commensurate with the potential 2024 election risks. The difference between the outlooks here may be because business leaders and security professionals have different perspectives on business risks.

Sound intelligence and timely threat tracking and reporting allows adequate time for risk owners to prepare for, and react to, crises. Even where sound and trusted intelligence exists, organizations will require experience and effective leadership to interpret and use the information.

Experience doesn’t happen overnight. Organizations can invest in training that can operationalize and stress-test resilience, security, and crisis management strategies, standards, and practices. Learning may be preplanned and structured to reflect known areas of risk or vulnerability, or it may be more reactive and deployed as a just-in-time solution to emerging or occurring violence. Groups of organizational learners span from the executive to employee level, as well as laterally across locational and specialist groupings. Getting knowledge and experience into the hands of learner groups during a crisis can be logistically problematic and financially costly. Spending time in advance to prepare for civil disruption can pay dividends down the line.

The upcoming U.S. elections contain all the ingredients for nation-level riots that could result in significant injuries, deaths, and business disruption. The threats seen today are markedly different from those experienced in the past. Compared to the violence seen in the 1960s, 1970s, or even the 1990s, the demographics and motivations of rioters have changed dramatically. Coupled with a rapidly evolving interplay of accelerants and exacerbators, this lays the foundation for widespread and complex violence.

Complicating the security challenge is the legalized participation of armed protestors and the risk of law enforcement overreaction as the number of armed paramilitary groups attending political rallies rises, according to Rachel Kleinfeld’s The Rise of Political Violence in the United States, which was published in Journal of Democracy. Kleinfeld, who serves on the National Task Force on Election Crises, posited in a separate article for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that the risk of violence increases by an estimated factor of x6.5 when armed demonstrators attend a public gathering.

Understanding the cause of civil disorder and the factors that compound, amplify, or intentionally exacerbate it allows security professionals to better predict areas and periods of elevated risk. Timely and accurate intelligence can identify and track potential flashpoints. Robust management structures, codified standards and practices, trained leaders and staff, appropriate resourcing, and timely communications all affect the identification and mitigation of risks. Security professionals have ample time ahead of the elections to evaluate the threat, determine the risks, assess the potential for business disruption, and to develop and resource appropriate resilience strategies.

 

Mike Blyth, DBA, is the chief executive officer for Sigma7 University, an international resilience and training services corporation. He has a doctorate in business administration and a master’s in security and emergency management. He has written two books, Security and Risk Management: Protecting People and Sites Worldwide and Business Continuity Management: Building the Incident Management Plan. He has worked in dynamic and high-risk scenarios in nearly 50 countries, and directly supports strategic resilience and crisis response efforts across a wide cross-section of sectors and industries.

Sula Mpande of Anthropic, Daniel Beale of Haliburton, and Antony Sherlock of Apple also contributed to this article.

 

arrow_upward